4 ms·

My question is why the government is funding Shell of all companies. The ones who have contributed to so much climate change and climate denial in the first pla

My question is why the government is funding Shell of all companies. The ones who have contributed to so much climate change and climate denial in the first place — shouldn’t this come out of their own pocketbook?

echelon 5y ago
Pragmatism and realpolitik. It doesn't really matter who is doing it so long as it's being done. The incentives align, and they're well positioned to do this.
- afarrell 5y ago
  Indeed. In the choice between punishing a corporation and solving the problem, we should pick solving the problem.
  - hazza_n_dazza 5y ago
    Thank you for that strawman. In a world with two choices, I take the third. Lets open up dialouge, not close all doors but two.
    - fragmede 5y ago
      False dichotomy is the fallacy you're reaching for.
caminante 5y ago
FTA: > Joanna Sivasankaran, the press secretary for the Minister of Natural Resources, said, “Carbon capture utilization and storage is not a silver bullet to the climate crisis but it is an important tool on the pathway to reaching Canada’s ambitious climate goals and reducing emissions in many industries, including oil and gas.”
- azinman2 5y ago
  Oh I’m not suggesting to avoid gov funding research. I’d just rather see that money go to academics, gov labs, and startups rather than a multinational who has raped the Earth for decades, and helped (helps?) fund climate denial. For those companies, I’d suggest forcing them to subsidize the research rather than the public subsidize them. No to privatizing profits while socializing loses.
  - WJW 5y ago
    It's a pretty pragmatic call: Shell has decades of experience with large scale chemistry operations, and the oil majors have been hiring all the smartest engineers in the field for decades, similar to how FAANG hovers up much of the software engineering talent by offering humongous salaries. If there is any company that has a decent chance at success for scaling up carbon capture technology, it is probably Shell or one of their main competitors. This type of hardware-based market is much less amenable to the type of startup-driven innovation that we see in the software world, because building a large scale chemical plant is so incredibly expensive.
  - caminante 5y ago
    >I’d suggest forcing them to subsidize the research rather than the public subsidize them. I'm afraid the sanction approach would merely force Shell to limit research/commercialization efforts and take jobs and tax revenues out of Canada. You're not designing a greenfield system. But if you want to go hardline, there would be severe consequences for Canada.
godelski 5y ago
From one perspective Shell has the most to gain from this technology. They are being forced to go green. So that can happen in one of two ways. 1) They convert their entire operation to green energy sources and scrap all their current investments. Meaning a major shift in operations. 2) They capture their emissions in place and turn their emitting sources into neutral (or negative) sources. To be honest, the second is probably easier and cheaper. Remember, the problem isn't so much that we are producing carbon, it is that we are producing carbon and we're ending up with too much in the atmosphere. If we produce carbon and it doesn't end up in the atmosphere then we don't really have the same problem.

echelon 5y ago

Pragmatism and realpolitik. It doesn't really matter who is doing it so long as it's being done. The incentives align, and they're well positioned to do this.

afarrell 5y ago
Indeed. In the choice between punishing a corporation and solving the problem, we should pick solving the problem.
- hazza_n_dazza 5y ago
  Thank you for that strawman. In a world with two choices, I take the third. Lets open up dialouge, not close all doors but two.
  - fragmede 5y ago
    False dichotomy is the fallacy you're reaching for.

caminante 5y ago

FTA: > Joanna Sivasankaran, the press secretary for the Minister of Natural Resources, said, “Carbon capture utilization and storage is not a silver bullet to the climate crisis but it is an important tool on the pathway to reaching Canada’s ambitious climate goals and reducing emissions in many industries, including oil and gas.”

azinman2 5y ago
Oh I’m not suggesting to avoid gov funding research. I’d just rather see that money go to academics, gov labs, and startups rather than a multinational who has raped the Earth for decades, and helped (helps?) fund climate denial. For those companies, I’d suggest forcing them to subsidize the research rather than the public subsidize them. No to privatizing profits while socializing loses.
- WJW 5y ago
  It's a pretty pragmatic call: Shell has decades of experience with large scale chemistry operations, and the oil majors have been hiring all the smartest engineers in the field for decades, similar to how FAANG hovers up much of the software engineering talent by offering humongous salaries. If there is any company that has a decent chance at success for scaling up carbon capture technology, it is probably Shell or one of their main competitors. This type of hardware-based market is much less amenable to the type of startup-driven innovation that we see in the software world, because building a large scale chemical plant is so incredibly expensive.
- caminante 5y ago
  >I’d suggest forcing them to subsidize the research rather than the public subsidize them. I'm afraid the sanction approach would merely force Shell to limit research/commercialization efforts and take jobs and tax revenues out of Canada. You're not designing a greenfield system. But if you want to go hardline, there would be severe consequences for Canada.

godelski 5y ago

From one perspective Shell has the most to gain from this technology. They are being forced to go green. So that can happen in one of two ways. 1) They convert their entire operation to green energy sources and scrap all their current investments. Meaning a major shift in operations. 2) They capture their emissions in place and turn their emitting sources into neutral (or negative) sources. To be honest, the second is probably easier and cheaper. Remember, the problem isn't so much that we are producing carbon, it is that we are producing carbon and we're ending up with too much in the atmosphere. If we produce carbon and it doesn't end up in the atmosphere then we don't really have the same problem.